उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

140-145] 'THOU ART THAT' 261 भूतिर्येषां क्रिया सैव कारकं सैव चोच्यते । सत्त्वं नाशित्वमस्याश्चेत्सकर्तृत्वं तथेष्यताम् ॥ १४३ ॥ 143. Actions, agents etc. consist, according to us, (Idealists), of knowledge only. (Reply). You must accept an agent of this know- ledge if you admit its existence and destruction (every moment).¹ न कश्चिच्चेष्यते धर्म इति चेत्पक्षहानता । नन्वस्तित्वादयो धर्मा नास्तित्वादिनिवृत्तयः । न भूतेस्तर्हि नाशित्वं स्वालक्षण्यं मतं हि ते ॥ १४४ ॥ 144. Your own conclusion is given up if you do not admit any quality² (belonging to knowledge). (Objection). The qualities of existence etc. are nothing but the nega- tion of their non-existence and so on. (Reply). Even then knowledge cannot be liable to destruction (every moment) as it is self-existent (and known by itself ³) according to you. स्वलक्षणावधिर्नाशो नाशोऽनाशनिवृत्तिता । अगोरसत्त्वं गोत्वं ते न तु तद्गोत्वलक्षणम् ॥ १४५ ॥ 145. Destruction has for its ultimate limit something which is self-existent.⁴ (You say that) destruction ⁵ is ¹ See verse 23, Chap. 16. ² Such as, existence and destruction every moment. ³ In being born and known by itself it requires more than one moment. It cannot, therefore, be called momentary. ⁴ The appearance and disappearance of things are impossible on account of the absence of a permanent entity (according to you) which must be their ultimate limit. Existence and destruction are, therefore, not possible in your philosophy. ⁵ Destruction being impossible, non-destruction also is so.

262 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII the negation of non-destruction. A cow is defined according to you as the non-existence of a non-cow. It cannot be the definition of a cow. क्षणवाच्योऽपि योऽर्थः स्यात्सोऽप्यन्याभाव एव ते ॥ १४६॥ 146. Things denoted by the word ‘momentary’ are also, according to you, only the negation of things that are non-momentary.¹ भेदाभावेऽप्यभावस्य भेदो नामभिरिष्यते । नामभेदैरनेकत्वमेकस्य स्यात्कथं तव ॥ १४७ ॥ 147. (The Idealists). As there cannot be any dif- ference in non-existence² differences are due to names only. (Reply). Please, tell me how there can be manyness in one (indivisible non-existence) due only to different names. अपोहो यदि भिन्नानां वृत्तिस्तस्य कथं गवि । नाभावा भेदकाः सर्वे विशेषा वा कथंचन ॥ १४८ ॥ 148. How³ can the negation (of a non-cow) denote a cow if by the word negation the negation of different things is meant ? (Again) no negation⁴ distinguishes one thing from another, nor can special properties⁵ do it. ¹ You have, therefore, to accept a permanent real entity. ² The Idealist means to say that his negation is not that of a reality. ³ For there is no limit to the number of things denoted by the word non-cow. All of them cannot, therefore, be known. So a cow cannot be defined. ⁴ E.g., the negation of a horse or that of a goat does not distinguish a cow from either of them. ⁵ E.g., hornlessness etc. See the next verse.

146-152] 'THOU ART THAT' 263 नामजात्यादयो यद्वत्संविदस्तद्विशेषतः ॥ १४९ ॥ 149. Just as names, species, etc. do not qualify Knowledge) according to you as it has no special properties, (so, the negation of a non-cow, hornless- ness etc. do not qualify a cow). प्रत्यक्षमनुमानं वा व्यवहारे यदिच्छसि । क्रियाकारकभेदैस्तदभ्युपेयं ध्रुवं भवेत् ॥ १५० ॥ 150. You have to admit difference as you have to accept sense-perception and inference consisting of actions, agents and so on in everyday life. तस्मान्नीलं तथा पीतं घटादिर्वा विशेषणम् । संविदस्तदुपैयं स्याद्येन चाप्यनुभूयते ॥ १५१ ॥ 151. Entities qualifying knowledge such as, jars, blue, yellow, etc. and also the knower by which these are known must be accepted.¹ रूपादीनां यथान्यः स्याद्ग्राह्यत्वादग्राहकस्तथा । प्रत्ययस्तत्तथान्यः स्याद्व्यञ्जकत्वात्प्रदीपवत् ॥ १५२ ॥ 152. Just as the perceiver is different from colours etc. which are perceivable, so, the Knower, the Self, is different from the modifications of the intellect which are knowable. (Again) just as a lamp revealing things ¹ Here ends the refutation of the Idealists begun in verse 141 above. Hence in addition to knowledge the knower and the known also must be accepted. See verses 141 and 142.

264 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII is different from them, so, the Knower is different from things known. अध्यक्षस्य दृशेः कीदृक्संबन्धः संभविष्यति । अध्यक्षेग¹ तु दृश्येन मुक्त्वान्यो द्रष्टृदृश्यताम् ॥ १५३ ॥ अध्यक्षेण कृता दृष्टिर्दृश्यं व्याप्नोत्यथापि वा । नित्याध्यक्षकृतः कश्चिदुपकारो भवेद्धियाम् ॥ १५४ ॥ 153, 154. What other relation except that of the seer and the seen can there be between the Self, the Witness and the modifications of the intellect witnessed by It ? (Question :) Does the consciousness of the Self pervade the modifications (really² or apparently) ? (Answer). If apparently, the eternal Self must be of some utility³ to the intellect. स चोक्तस्तन्निभत्वं प्राक्संव्याप्तिश्च घटादिषु । यथालोकादिसंव्याप्तिर्व्यञ्जकत्वाद्धियस्तथा ॥ १५५ ॥ 155. It has been said before⁴ that the benefit derived from (the proximity of) the Self by the intellect is that it appears conscious like the former. Being a revealer the intellect⁵ pervading objects like light and so on pervading jars etc. आलोकस्थो घटो यद्वद्बुद्ध्यारूढो भवेत्तथा । धीव्याप्तिः स्याद्घटारोहो धियो व्याप्तौ क्रमो भवेत् ॥ १५६ ॥ ¹ The reading should perhaps be अध्यक्षेण. ² Real pervasion is impossible as the Self is changeless. ³ See the following verse. ⁴ Verse 87 above. ⁵ The Self is thus related to external objects through Its reflection.

153-159] ' THOU ART THAT ' 265 156. Just as a jar ¹ placed in the sun may be said to be mounted on light, so, an object in the intellect may be said to be mounted on it. Being mounted is nothing but being pervaded by the intellect. Objects become pervaded by the intellect one after another. पूर्वं स्यात्प्रत्ययव्याप्तिस्तततोऽनुग्रह आत्मनः । कृत्स्नाध्यक्षस्य नो युक्तः कालाकाशादिवत्क्रमः ॥ १५७ ॥ 157. The intellect pervades an object (and assumes its form) when the object is revealed through the help (i.e., the reflection) of the Self. Like time and space the all-pervading Self ² can have no order or succession (in pervading objects). विषयग्रहणं यस्य कारणापेक्षया भवेत् । सत्येवं ग्राह्यशेषे च परिणामी स चित्तवत् ॥ १५८ ॥ 158. A thing like the intellect that depends on the agent etc. in pervading its objects (and does not pervade all objects at the same time,) some being always Ieft unpervaded, is liable to transformation. अध्यक्षोऽहमिति ज्ञानं बुद्धेरेव विनिश्चयः । नाध्यक्षस्याविशेषत्वान्न तस्यास्ति परो यतः ॥ १५९ ॥ 159. It is to the intellect and not to the Self which is immutable that the knowledge, 'I am Brahman' ¹ See verse 6, chap. 14. ² See verse 7, chap. 14.

266 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII belongs. Moreover the Self is changeless because ¹ It has no other witness. कर्त्रा चेदहमित्येवमनुभूयेत मुक्तता । सुखदुःखविनिर्मोक्षो नाहंकर्तरि युज्यते ॥ १६० ॥ 160. If the agent, the ego, were to feel ' I am liberated ' ² freedom from pain and pleasure would not be reasonable ³ with respect to it. बाध्यते प्रत्ययेनेह विवेकेनाविवेकवान् । देहादावभिमानोत्थो दुःखीति प्रत्ययो ध्रुवम् । कुण्डलीप्रत्ययो यद्वत्प्रत्यगात्माभिमानिना ॥ १६१ ॥ विपर्ययेऽसदन्तं स्यात्प्रमाणस्याप्रमाणतः ॥ १६२ ॥ 161, 162. The wrong knowledge that one is happy or unhappy due to one's identification with the body etc., like the pleasure or sorrow due to the possession or loss of an ear-ring, is surely negated by the right knowledge that one is Pure Consciousness. An evidence becoming non-evidence, everything will end in non-existence in the reverse case.⁴ दाहच्छेदविनाशेषु दुःखित्वं नान्यथात्मनः । नैव ह्यन्यस्य दाह्यादावन्यो दुःखी भवेत्क्वचित् ॥ १६३ ॥ 163. One feels pain when one's body gets burnt, cut or destroyed, (because one identifies oneself with ¹ It is only changeful things that can have a witness. If a witness of the Self is assumed there will be a regressus ad infinitum. ² Liberation, the result, apparently belongs to the Self. (See verses 107, 108 and 109 above.) ³ For an agent is always connected with pain and pleasure. ⁴ Where wrong knowledge to negate right knowledge.

160-166] ' THOU ART THAT ' 267 it). Otherwise the Self (which is different from the body) is never pained. Owing to there being burns etc. in one man another is not pained. अस्पर्शात्वाददेहत्वान्नाहं दाह्यो यतः सदा । तस्मान्मिथ्याभिमानोत्थं मृते पुत्रे मृतिर्यथा ॥ १६४ ॥ 164. As I am not touched ¹ by anything and do not possess a body I am never susceptible of being burnt. Pain arises from the wrong notion (due to a false identification with the body) like the wrong notion of one being dead at the death of one's son. कुण्डल्यहमिति ह्येतद्बाध्येतैव विवेकिना । दुःखीति प्रत्ययस्तद्वत्केवलाहंधिया सह ॥ १६५ ॥ 165. Just as the wrong notion, 'I possess an ear- ring' is removed when the right ² knowledge regarding it arises, so, the false consciousness, 'I am unhappy' is negated by the right knowledge, 'I am Pure Brahman'. सिद्धे दुःखित्व इष्टं स्यात्तच्छक्तिश्छन्दसात्मनः । मिथ्याभिमानतो दुःखी तेनार्थापादनक्षमः ॥ १६६ ॥ 166. The Self might be freely imagined to have the potentiality of pain in It if It were proved to possess pain at all. One's identification with the body etc. is the cause of the pain felt and is responsible for the idea of such a potentiality existing in It. ¹ Kath. U., 1. 3. 15. ² I.e., an ear-ring is a piece of gold having no connection with a man.

268 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII अस्पर्शोऽपि यथा स्पर्शमचलश्चलनादि च । अविवेकात्तथा दुःखं मानसं चात्मनीक्ष्यते ॥ १६७ ॥ 167. Just as, due to indiscrimination, touch and movement are felt to be in the Self (which is devoid of them), so, mental pain is also felt to be in It owing to the same reason). विवेकात्मधिया दुःखं नुद्यते चलनादिवत् । अविवेकस्वभावेन मनो गच्छत्यनिच्छतः ॥ १६८ ॥ तदानुदृश्यते दुःखं नैश्चल्येनैव तस्य तत् । प्रत्यगात्मनि तस्मात्तद्दुःखं नैवोपपद्यते ॥ १६९ ॥ 168, 169. The pain (due to one's identification with the subtle body) comes to an end like movements etc. on one's having the discriminating knowledge (that one is the Innermost Self), coming to an end (when one knows that one is different from the gross body. Un- happiness is seen in one when one's mind roams against one's will on account of Ignorance. But it is not seen in one when the mind is at rest. It is, there- fore, not reasonable that unhappiness is in the inner- most Self. त्वंसतोस्तुल्यनीडत्वान्नीलाश्ववदिदं भवेत् ॥ १७० ॥ 170. The saying, 'Thou art That,' (therefore) implies an indivisible reality,¹ the words 'Thou' and 'That' expressing the same reality (indirectly) like (the words 'blue' and 'horse' in) the sentence,² it is a blue horse.' ¹ Self-Brahman. ² This example is meant to imply an indivisible thing and not a qualified one.

167-173] 'THOU ART THAT' 269 निर्दुःखवाचिना योगात्त्वंशब्दस्य तदर्थता । प्रत्यगात्माभिधानेन तच्छब्दस्य युतेस्तथा ॥ १७१ ॥ 171. The word 'Thou' comes to mean one free from pain on account of its being used (in the same predicament) with the word 'That' which means One eternally devoid of pain. Similarly, used in the same connection with the word 'Thou' meaning the Inner- most Self (which is directly known) the word 'That' also (comes to mean a thing directly known). दशमस्त्वमसीत्येवं वाक्यं स्यात्प्रत्यगात्मनि ॥ १७२ ॥ 172. The sentence, ('Thou art That' produces the immediate knowledge) of Self-Brahman like the say- ing,¹ 'You are the tenth.' स्वार्थस्य ह्यप्रहाणेन विशिष्टार्थसमर्पकौ । प्रत्यगात्मावगम्यन्तौ नान्योऽर्थोऽर्थाद्विरोध्यतः ॥ १७३ ॥ 173. Without giving up their own meanings² the words, ('thou' and 'That') deliver (by implication) a special one³ resulting in the knowledge of Self- Brahman. They do not express any other⁴ meaning contrary to it. ¹ See foot-note 2, verse 3, chap. 12. ² Direct meanings. The direct meaning of the word 'thou' is Pure Consciousness with the intellect and the reflection of Consciousness in it. The direct meaning of the word 'That' is Pure Consciousness with Mâyâ (Primeval Ignorance) and the reflection of Consciousness in it. ³ A Being indivisible and of the nature of Bliss only, Self- Brahman. ⁴ I.e., One connected with or qualified by anything else. See Sankarâchârya's 'Vâkya Vritti' verse 38.

270 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII नवसङ्ख्यापहाराद्धि स्वात्मानं दशपूरणम् । अपश्यञ्ज्ञातुमेवेच्छेत्स्वमात्मानं जनस्तथा ॥ १७४ ॥ अविद्याबद्धचक्षुष्ट्वात्कामापहृतधीः सदा । विविक्तं दृशिमात्मानं नेक्षते दशमं यथा ॥ १७५ ॥ 174, 175. Just as misled by the number nine the boy¹ did not know the truth i.e., himself and wanted to know himself, so, one does not see one's own Self, the Witness, though detached from the non- Self and self-evident, on account of one's eyes be- ing covered by Ignorance and intellect captivated by desires. दशमस्त्वमसीत्येवं तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यतः । स्वमात्मानं विजानाति कृत्स्नान्तःकरणेक्षणम् ॥ १७६ ॥ 176. One knows one's own Self, the witness of the intellect² and all its modifications, from sentences such as, ‘Thou art That’ like the boy who knew himself from the sentence, ‘You are the tenth.’ इदं पूर्वमिदं पश्चात्पदं वाक्यं भवेदिति । अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां ततो वाक्यार्थबोधनम् ॥ १७७ ॥ वाक्ये हि श्रूयमाणानां पदानामर्थसंस्मृतिः । नियमो नैव वेदेऽस्ति पदसांगत्यमर्थतः ॥ १७८ ॥ 177, 178. The understanding of sentences ¹ is possible (on the knowledge of the implied meanings of the words) after it has been ascertained by the method of ¹ See foot-note 2, verse 3, chapter 12. ² Including the ego. ³ I.e., the understanding of the meaning of the word 'Thou' to be the meaning of the word 'That'.

174-180] ‘ THOU ART THAT 271 agreement and contrariety which words should be placed first ¹ and which next. For the order of words in Vedic sentences follows ² the meaning of the sentences. No rule about (the order of) remembering the meanings of words in sentences holds good in the Vedas. यदा नित्येषु वाक्येषु पदार्थस्तु विविच्यते । वाक्यार्थज्ञानसंक्रान्त्यै तदा प्रश्नो न युज्यते ॥ १७९ ॥ 179. The question ³ is out of place when the mean- ings of words in sentences ⁴ having fixed meanings are made clear ⁵ in order that the meanings of sentences may be comprehended. अन्वयव्यतिरेकोक्तिः पदार्थस्मरणाय तु । स्मृत्यभावे न वाक्यार्थो ज्ञातुं शक्यो हि केनचित् ॥ १८० ॥ 180. The method of agreement ⁶ and contrariety is spoken of in order that one may be acquainted with the (implied) meanings of words. For no one can know the meaning of a sentence without knowing (the mean- ings of the words in it). ¹ In construing sentences we place the words having known meanings, 'I', 'thou', etc. first and 'That,' 'Brahman', etc. next, which have unknown meanings. ² In the Vedic statement, 'oblations should be offered to fire', 'barley gruel should be cooked', though offering of oblations precedes it is done next; for the offerings must be made with the cooked gruel. Such is the case with the words 'That' and 'thou' in the sentence 'That thou art' (तत्त्वमसि). ³ How one is Brahman. ⁴ 'Thou art That' etc. ⁵ By the method of agreement and contrariety. See verse 96 above. ⁶ See verse 96 above.

272 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्येषु त्वंपदार्थाविवेकतः । व्यज्यते नैव वाक्यार्थो नित्यमुक्तोऽहमित्यतः ॥ १८१ ॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकोक्तिस्तद्विवेकाय नान्यथा । त्वंपदार्थविवेके हि पाणावर्पितबिल्ववत् ॥ १८२ ॥ वाक्यार्थो व्यज्यते चैवं केवलोऽहंपदार्थतः । दुःखीत्येतदपोहेन प्रत्यगात्मविनिश्चयात् ॥ १८३ ॥ 181—183. The meaning of the sentences like ‘Thou art That’, i.e., one is Brahman ever free, does not become manifest on account of the non-discrimination of the (implied) meaning of the word ‘Thou’. It is for the purpose of discriminating the meaning of that word and for no other purpose that the method of agreement and contrariety has been described. For when the meaning of the word ‘thou’ is discriminated by the negation of the ego subject to unhappiness from the meaning¹ of the word ‘I’ one becomes prefectly sure of the nature of the Innermost Self. And then the meaning² of the sentence viz., One Pure Con- sciousness, becomes manifest like an Aegle marmelos fruit placed on one’s palm. तत्रैवं संभवत्यर्थे श्रुतहानाश्रुतार्थधीः । नैव कल्पयितुं युक्ता पदवाक्यार्थकोविदैः ॥ १८४ ॥ 184. Those who are well-versed in the meanings of words and sentences should not, therefore, assume a meaning³ which is not in accordance with the Srutis ¹ The direct meaning. See foot-note 2, verse 173. ² See foot-note 3, verse 173. ³ Action (e.g., the reiteration of the idea, ‘I am Brahman’) as the direct means to right knowledge causing the cessation of Ignorance.

181-186] ‘ THOU ART THAT ’ 273 and give up what ¹ is in them. For this explanation of the sentence ² is thus possible. प्रत्यक्षादीनि बाधेरन्कृष्णलादिषु पाकवत् । अक्षजादिनिभैरेतैः कथं स्याद्वाक्यबाधनम् ॥ १८५ ॥ 185. (Objection). The knowledge ‘ I am Brahman ’³ is contradicted by sense-perception ⁴ etc. like the cooking of gold ⁵ particles. (Reply). How can that knowledge be contradicted ⁶ by these which are evidences only apparently ? दुःख्यस्मीति सति ज्ञाने निर्दुःखीति न जायते । प्रत्यक्षादिनिभत्वेऽपि वाक्यान्न व्यभिचारतः ॥ १८६ ॥ 186. (Objection). The knowledge that one is devoid of unhappiness does not arise from the sentence as long ⁷ as one feels that one is unhappy, though the feeling of unhappiness may be due to sense-percep- tion etc. which are all fallacious. (Reply). we say ‘ No.’ For there are exceptions.⁸ ¹ Right knowledge of Self-Brahman arising from the sentences like ‘Thou art That’ and negating Ignorance. ² ‘Thou art That.’ ³ On the part of those who hold that the idea, ‘ I am Brahman ’ is enjoined to be repeated for self-purification. ⁴ For sense-perception, according to the objector, proves agency etc. to be in the Self. ⁵ Gold particles are boiled in order to sanctify them for use in certain sacrifices. ⁶ Evidently they (gold particles) do not become soft. So the word ‘ cooking ’ implies a contradiction. ⁷ One feels unhappy and so on from one’s birth. The know- ledge, ‘ I am free from unhappiness ’ (i.e., ‘ I am Brahman ’) which comes later cannot, therefore, negate the previous one. ⁸ E g., One feels that the sky is blue from one’s birth, but one acquires the knowledge later that it is free from blueness when one is told so. See verse 3, chap 2, Metrical Part. 18

274 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII स्वप्ने दुःख्यहमध्यासं दाहच्छेदादिहेतुतः । तत्कालभाविभिर्वाक्यैर्न बाधः क्रियते यदि ॥ १८७ ॥ समाप्तेस्तर्हि दुःखस्य प्राक्च तद्बाध इष्यताम् । न हि दुःखस्य संतानो भ्रान्तेर्वा दृश्यते क्वचित् ॥ १८८ ॥ 187, 188. (Reply continued). I felt miserable on ac- count of burns, cuts, etc. in dream (and was freed¹ from pain through the teaching imparted to me by a man of knowledge in that state). Even if it be contended that the teaching in dream negates no pain, (still pain etc. cannot be regarded as belonging to the Self). For the absence of pain is there both before² and after² it is experienced, delusion or a pain being never unceasing. प्रत्यगात्मन आत्मत्वं दुःख्यस्मीत्यस्य बाधया । दशमं नवमस्येव वेद चेदविरुद्धता ॥ १८९ ॥ 189. There is no contradiction if, by negating the idea that one is unhappy, one knows oneself to be the Innermost Self (i.e., Brahman) like the bony³ who knew himself to be the tenth by negating the false motion that he was the ninth. नित्यमुक्तत्वविज्ञानं वाक्याद्भवति नान्यतः । वाक्यार्थस्यापि विज्ञानं पदार्थस्मृतिपूर्वकम् ॥ १९० ॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां पदार्थः स्मर्यते ध्रुवम् । एवं निर्दुःखमात्मानमक्रियं प्रतिपद्यते ॥ १९१ ॥ ¹ Pain etc. are, therefore, not the properties of the Self. ² G. K. 2. 6. ³ See footnote 2, verse 3, chapter 12.

187-194] ' THOU ART THAT ' 275 190, 191. It is from the sentence only and from noth- ing else that one knows oneself to be ever free.¹ The meaning of the sentence is known from the knowledge of the (implied) meanings of the words ; these meanings again are surely understood by the method of agree- ment² and contrariety. Thus one knows oneself to be free from pain and action. सदेवेत्यादिवाक्येभ्यः प्रमा स्फुटतरा भवेत् । दशमस्त्वमसीत्यस्माद्यथैवं प्रत्यगात्मनि ॥ १९२ ॥ प्रबोधेन यथा स्वाप्नं सर्वदुःखं निवर्तते । प्रत्यगात्मधिया तद्वद्दुःखित्वं सर्वदात्मनः ॥ १९३ ॥ 192, 193. The right knowledge of Self-Brahman becomes manifest from sentences such as, ‘Thou art That’, like the knowledge acquired from the sentence, ‘you are the tenth.’ The (false) conception of pain with regard to the Self vanishes for ever when the (right) knowledge of Self-Brahman arises, like all kinds of pain experienced in dream which come to an end as soon as one wakes up. कृष्णलादौ प्रमाऽजन्म तदन्यार्थाऽमृदुत्वतः । तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्येषु न त्वेवमविरोधतः ॥ १९४ ॥ 194. The knowledge (that they have been cooked) does not arise in the case of gold³ particles etc. as they do not become soft. They are made hot by boiling them for the purpose of producing an unseen result (in connection with sacrifices). It is not a fact ¹ I.e., Brahman. ² See verse 96 above. ³ See verse 185.

276 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII that right knowledge does not arise from sentences like 'Thou art That.' For there is no such¹ contradic- tion here. वाक्ये तत्त्वमसीत्यस्मिञ्ज्ञातार्थे तदसीद्वयम् । त्वमर्थे सत्यसाहाय्याद्वाक्यं नोत्पादयेत्प्रमाम् ॥ १९५ ॥ 195. The meanings of the two words 'That' and 'art' in the sentence 'Thou art that' are well-known. It does not produce right knowledge for want of help when the (implied) meaning of the word 'Thou'² (is not known). तत्त्वमोस्तुल्यनीडार्थमसीत्येतत्पदं भवेत् ॥ १९६ ॥ 196. The word 'art' is used in order to show that the two words 'Thou' and 'That' are in the same predicament. तच्छब्दः प्रत्यगात्मार्थस्तच्छब्दार्थस्त्वमस्तथा । दुःखित्वाप्रत्यगात्मत्वं वारयेतामुभावपि ॥ १९७ ॥ 197. (Being in the same predicament with the word 'Thou',) the word 'That' comes to mean the Inner- most Self. (Similary, being in the same relation with the word 'That',) the word 'Thou' comes to mean the same thing as the word 'That'. (Thus in relation to each other) the two words³ show that the Innermost Self is not unhappy and that Brahman is not other than the Self. ¹ As in the case of gold particles. ² See verse 181 of this chapter. ³ See verse 171 of this chapter.

195-200] 'THOU ART THAT' 277 एवं च नेतिनेत्यर्थं गमयेतां परस्परम् ॥ १९८ ॥ 198. Thus both of them in conjunction express the same meaning¹ as is implied by the sentence, 'Not² this, not this.' एवं तत्त्वमसीत्यस्य गम्यमाने फले, कथम् । अप्रमाणत्वमस्योक्ता क्रियापेक्षत्वमुच्यते ॥ १९९ ॥ 199. Why do you say that the sentence is not an evidence³ (regarding the knowledge of Brahman) and depends on an action (in order to produce the same knowledge) as the result produced by the sentence, 'Thou art That', (is the right knowledge regarding Self-Brahman ?). तस्माद्याद्यन्तमध्येषु कुर्वित्येतद्विरोध्यतः । न कल्पामोऽश्रुतत्वाच्च श्रुतत्यागोऽप्यनर्थकः ॥ २०० ॥ 200. We do not, therefore, admit (the injunction of an action) in the beginning,⁴ end⁵ or middle.⁶ For it⁷ is contradictory and not met with in the Vedas. Not only so, we have, in that case, to give up what⁸ is there in them. And that would be harmful. ¹ A Being, one and indivisible, of the nature of Bliss, Self- Brahman. ² Br. U., 2. 3. 6. ³ See verses 9, 17 and 18 above. ⁴ At the time of the first teaching of the sentence 'Thou art That.' ⁵ At the time when direct knowledge of Self- Brahman has been achieved. ⁶ At the time of understanding the implied meanings of the words by the method of agreement and contrariety. See verse 96 of this chapter for the said method. ⁷ See footnote 2, p. 272. ⁸ See footnote 1, p. 273.

278 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII यथानुभूयते तृप्तिर्भुजेर्वाक्यान्न गम्यते । वाक्यस्य विधृतिस्तद्वद्गोशकृत्पायसीक्रिया ॥ २०१ ॥ 201. (Objection). The Bliss of liberation is not obtained by ascertaining the meaning of the sentence. It is not like the satisfaction which is felt by eating. Just as boiled milk-rice cannot be prepared from cow- dung, so, (the direct knowledge of Brahman cannot be produced) simply by ascertaining the meaning of the sentence. सत्यमेवमनात्मार्थे वाक्यात्पारोक्ष्यबोधनम् । प्रत्यगात्मनि न त्वेवं संख्याप्राप्तिवद्ध्रुवम् ॥ २०२ ॥ 202. (Reply). Indirect knowledge, it is true, is the result produced by the sentences regarding the non-Self, but it is not so in the case of those regarding the Innermost Self. It is, on the other hand (direct and certain knowledge) like that in the case of the tenth¹ boy. स्वयंवेद्यत्वपर्यायः स्वप्रमाणक इष्यताम् । निवृत्तावहमः सिद्धः स्वात्मनोऽनुभवश्च नः ॥ २०३ ॥ 203. Therefore accept the Self as self-evident which means the same thing as self-knowable. The know- ledge of the Innermost Self according to us thus be- comes possible when the ego² vanishes. बुद्धीनां विषयो दुःखं नो यस्य विषया मताः । कुतोऽस्य दुःखसंबन्धो दृशेः स्यात्प्रत्यगात्मनः ॥ २०४ ॥ ¹ See footnote 2, verse 3, chapter 12. ² It vanishes when one is taught 'Thou art That.'

201-207] 'THOU ART THAT' 279 204. Pain is a property belonging to the intellect.¹ How can it, therefore, belong to the Innermost Self which is of the nature of Pure Consciousness and not connected with pain ? दृशिरेवानुभूयेत स्वेनैवानुभवात्मना । तदाभासतया जन्म धियोऽस्यानुभवः स्मृतः ॥ २०५ ॥ 205. The Witness is known by Itself² which is of the nature of knowledge only. It is the birth of the modification of the intellect pervaded by the reflec- tion of Consciousness that is what is known to be the knowledge³ of the Self. अशनायादिनिर्मुक्तः सिद्धो मोक्षस्त्वमेव सः । श्रोतव्यादि तवेत्येतद्विरुद्धं कथमुच्यते ॥ २०६ ॥ 206. How can you speak of the hearing⁴ etc. (of the Self) on your part which is a contradiction⁵ when you are (taught to be) the eternally existing Liberation⁶ free from hunger etc. ? सेत्स्यतीत्येव चेत्तत्स्याच्छ्रवणादि तदा भवेत् । मोक्षस्यानित्यतैव स्याद्विरोधे नान्यथा वचः ॥ २०७ ॥ 207. Hearing etc. would be necessary if Liberation were to be brought about. But It would be transitory ¹ I.e., the ego. ² It requires, in order to be known, no other knowledge. ³ I.e., 'I am Brahman.' ⁴ Br, U., 2. 4. 5. ⁵ For a man cannot be the actionless Brahman and at the same time the agent of hearing etc. ⁶ I.e., Brahman.

280 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII in that case. The sentence, therefore, can have no other meaning ¹ which involves contradiction. श्रोतृश्रोतव्ययोर्भेदो यदीष्टः स्याद्भवेदिदम् । इष्टार्थकोप एवं स्यान्न युक्तं सर्वथा वचः ॥ २०८ ॥ 208. The repetition of the idea, ‘I am Brahman’ might be possible if there were a difference between the hearer (i.e. the aspirant) ² and what is to be heard (but) the desired meaning ³ would be wronged in that case. Therefore the sentence becomes unreasonable (i.e., loses authority according to that view). सिद्धो मोक्षोऽहमित्येवं ज्ञात्वात्मानं भवेद्यदि । चिकीर्षुर्यः स मूढात्मा शास्त्रं चोद्घाटत्यपि ॥ २०९ ॥ 209. Knowing that one is eternally existing Libera- tion one who desires to perform actions ⁴ is a man of clouded intellect and nullifies the scriptures. नहि सिद्धस्य कर्तव्यं सकार्यस्य न सिद्धता । उभयालम्वनं कुर्वन्नात्मानं वञ्चयत्यपि ॥ २१० ॥ 210. For knowing oneself to be Brahman one has no duty to perform; nor can one be a knower of Brahman when one has duties to perform. One deceives oneself by having recourse to both sides. ¹ E.g., the reiteration of the idea, ‘I am Brahman.’ ² The Self (i.e., Brahman) Br. U. p. 2, 4, 5. See also verse 111. ³ That the individual Self is Brahman. ⁴ E.g., the reiteration of the idea, ‘I am Brahman’. For the objector’s contention see Verses 12 and 18 above.